Publishers and Open Access
出版社与开放获取

Subscription-based Journal Publishing / Robert Campbell & Edward Wates, Wiley-Blackwell
订阅期刊出版系统 / 罗伯特·坎贝尔，爱德华·威兹（威利-布莱克韦尔）（注65）




注65: The views expressed are those of the authors and may not under any cirumstances be regarded as stating an official position of Wiley-Blackwell.
作者观点不代表威利-布莱克韦尔的官方立场


Introduction•••••••••••••
导论

Annual global revenue for STM journals is about $6.5 billion although estimates vary. There are about 25 000 peer reviewed journals produced by at least 2 000 publishers, with around 65% of the market held by the top 20 publishers. Around 1.6 million peer reviewed articles were published in 2006 and the number has risen steadily by 3-4% per annum for decades in line with the growth in the research community. It is possible, however, that we shall see this annual increase go up to around 4-5% driven by the rising global spend on R & D.
尽管估计有所不同，但科技医学期刊每年全球收益大致为65亿美元。至少有2,000家出版社，生产约25,000种经由同行评审的期刊，其中前20家出版社占约65％的市场份额。2006年，发表约160万篇经同行评审的学术论文。伴随研究社区的成长，过去几十年来，发文数每年以3-4％的速度稳定增长。然而，受全球研发支出提高的驱动，年增长将达到约4-5％。

Unfortunately although governments are spending more on research, scholarly communication is unlikely to be funded so generously. Many European universities, for example, have seen spending on libraries fall from about 4% of total expenditure to around 3% since 1980.
不幸的是，尽管政府在研究上投入更多，学术交流并未得到相应的慷慨资助。以欧洲大学为例，自1980年以来，花在图书馆上的费用由总支出的约4％下降至约3％。

Most of the $6.5 billion of journal income comes from institutional subscribers. Other sources of revenue are advertising, reprints of articles and sponsored supplements (particularly in medicine). There is also revenue from personal subscriptions (including members of societies), although this is in decline largely as a result of the almost universal availability of journals through institutional libraries. Some members only join a society to get their journal at a low rate. Some publishers also operate schemes whereby an author can pay for Open Access, which is another potential source of revenue although as yet insignificant in relation to subscription revenues.
65亿美元的期刊收益，绝大多数来自机构订户，其它收入来源是广告、重印论文和厂商赞助（尤其在医学领域）。也有收入来自个人订户（包括学会会员），然而主要由于可以经由机构图书馆广泛使用期刊，个人订户处于衰减中。有些人加入学会，只为了可以低价取得期刊。有些出版社也让作者支付费用，采用开放获取模式，虽然与订阅收入相比微不足道，但也是另一个潜在的收入来源。

The publishing community has invested heavily over the last decade in the online delivery of journal content and linked with new pricing models (including the so-called 'big deal') has provided more access to more articles at a much lower unit cost. However, while print runs have fallen in recent years, most journals are still issued in both print and electronic format. As a result of this, and because of the high cost of developing electronic systems, there has not been a reduction in overall subscription prices, despite the substantial rise in overall access.
过去十年中，出版界在在线传递期刊内容方面做了大量投资，并且结合新的订价模式（包括所谓“大订单”），以较低的单价，提供获取更多的论文。然而，尽管近年来印本量下降，大部分期刊仍发行印本和电子两种格式。其结果是，由于发展电子系统的高成本，尽管整体的获取量急速增加，但整体的订阅价格并未下降。

The dramatic development of the research journal and access to its content can be seen in the example below.
从以下例子，可以看到研究期刊及获取其内容的戏剧性发展。

The rise, fall and rise in circulation of a research journal•••••
研究期刊发行量的起伏

The graph (Figure 1) shows the circulation to libraries of a specialised research journal in whole organism biology launched in 1972. Growth in circulation was steady until a peak in 1986 then like most other journals and despite the efforts of two excellent editors the circulation started to slip.
图1显示某有机生物学研究期刊自1972年发刊以来，在图书馆的发行量。一开始发行量稳定成长，至1986年达到高峰，随后就像大多数其它期刊一样，尽管有两位优秀编辑的努力，发行量开始下滑。  

<Figure 1>

图1: 研究期刊发行量的起伏

There was pressure from researchers to publish more pages with the result that to pay for these and compensate for loss of subscribers the subscription price went up by more than inflation. By the early 1990s the future of the print-on-paper research journal looked grim and understandably the library community was being increasingly critical of the ever higher prices and the difficulty in maintaining holdings.
研究人员有发表更多论文的压力，由此而为论文付费。而为了弥补订户减少的损失，期刊订费的上涨幅度超过通货膨胀。到1990年代初，印本研究期刊的未来形势严峻，图书馆界对价格高涨以至难以维持馆藏的不断批评，也就可以理解了。

Then the first online delivery systems were launched in the late 1990s and behind these there followed a complete revolution in journal production. Once these systems were in place publishers could rethink their traditional pricing model as an extra user could be supplied at minimal extra cost, rather than for the considerable additional costs of printing, binding, materials and postal distribution.
随后首个在线传递系统于1990年代末发布，为期刊生产带来全面性的革命。一旦这些系统就位，出版社可以重新思考其传统的订价模式，因为对每位新增用户，只需极少的额外费用，不需要附加相当多的印刷、装订、原料和邮寄费用。

The journal in Figure 1 is still supplied in hard copy to subscribers that want it in this way but by 2006 35% of the subscribers opted for e-only; this figure will be at least 65% by 2010. And the subscribers are only the core circulation. Through the ‘big deal’, e.g. licences to consortia for access to the publisher’s whole list and arrangements with organisations that provide access at reduced rates in developing countries, the total circulation is lifted to around 6 000. Almost universal access has been achieved without risking the sustainability of the publication. Speed of publication (helped by an Electronic Editorial Office system for running peer review over the Internet) has improved along with the Impact Factor which was up by 26% in 2005. Submission of articles in 2006 was 35% up on 2005 necessitating a rejection rate of over 70% while submissions continued to climb in 2007 (up 11%).
图1的期刊仍提供印本给需要的订户，但到了2006年，有35％的订户选择只订电子版，预计到2010年，此数字将至少提升至65％。而且订户只是核心发行量，通过“大订单”，如许可给联盟以出版社的全部期刊，以及安排在发展中国家，以较大折扣提供机构获取这些期刊，全部发行量攀升至6千份。在没有持续出版风险的前提下，几乎已达到全球获取。出版速度改善（通过因特网以电子编辑办公系统处理同行评审事宜），2005年的影响因子升至26％。2006年的收稿量比前一年增加35％，退稿率超过70％，2007年预期收稿量仍会攀升（增加11％）。


Sustainability••••••••••••
可持续性

This remains a major problem for Open Access. Hardly any of the pay-to-publish Open Access journals (the ‘golden road’ to Open Access) are making a profit or even breaking even. The likelihood is that some will be maintained by enthusiasts (but for how long?), some will cease and some will raise charges as we are seeing already. Are authors taking risks in placing articles with some of these exclusively pay-to-publish journals? Will the standard of some of these titles become compromised as they struggle to survive? There are even examples of companies exploiting the pay-to-publish model by charging authors for Open Access publication but without offering any of the traditional functions of a publisher that contribute to maintaining the ‘minutes of science’. On the other hand, the subscription-based journal outlined above can afford to raise its rejection rate because it is financially viable.
这仍然是开放获取的主要问题。几乎还没有任何付费出版的开放获取期刊（“金科”的开放获取）已获利或收支平衡。可能部分由热心者维持（但能维持多久？），部分会停刊，还有一些提高收费标准，如同已经看到的那样。作者愿意冒险把文章登在这些只有付费才出版的期刊吗？为了生存，这些期刊会对标准妥协吗？甚至有些公司，开发付费出版模式，向开放获取出版物的作者收费，但没有提供出版社的传统功能，留存“科学备忘录”。而因为财务上可以负担，前述订阅期刊有能力提高退稿率。

The other route to Open Access – the so-called green road – is through self-archiving of articles published in subscription-based journals. It is proposed that this would not lead to librarians cancelling subscriptions even though the content is freely available on Institutional and Subject Repositories (IRs and SRs). Unfortunately this model is unlikely to be sustainable although it may work in some subjects, e.g. astronomy(66). A recent survey has shown, not surprisingly, that librarians are likely to cancel subscriptions if self-archiving becomes commonplace(67).
开放获取的另一策略——俗称玉律，是自存档已发表于订阅期刊的论文。有人认为，即使可以在机构及学科典藏库（IR及SR）自由获取这些内容，也不会导致图书馆员取消订阅。不幸的是，尽管在某些学科如天文学（注66）里这种模式可以运作，但它却未必有可持续性。最近的一项调查显示，如果自存档成为惯例，图书馆员倾向于取消订阅（注67），这不足为奇。


注66: see Henneken, E.A. et al., 'E-prints and journal articles in astronomy: a productive co-existence' = [天文学的电子文本与期刊论文], in: Learned Publishing 20 (2007), 16-22.
注67: Beckett, Chris & Inger, Simon, 'Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Co-existence or Competition?' = [自存档与期刊订阅：共存或竞争？], PRC Summary Papers 2 (2007).


The journal is not just about dissemination, however. Another critical function is to establish a permanent record, ‘the minutes of science’. In the digital era, this requires the publisher to develop sophisticated techniques for preserving metadata (such as dates of submission, acceptance and publication) as well as secure content delivery platforms. Due to the facility with which publicly available electronic files can be manipulated, both the golden and green roads to Open Access could undermine this – a major flaw which remains ignored by the Open Access lobby.
然而期刊不只事关传播，还有另一个关键功能，即建立永久的记录，“科学备忘录”。在数字时代，要求出版社发展复杂的技术，以保存元数据（如提交、接受日期及出版日期），并确保内容传递平台的安全。由于公共可获取的电子文件可能被操控，开放获取的玉律与金科都可能面对此一问题——这是开放获取游说团体仍忽视的一个主要缺陷。

With so many versions of an article potentially available, there exists a problem of version control. With many journals the author can post their version of the accepted article after publication. This may well not include corrections made by the publisher’s copy-editor or changes made by the author in proof. A recent paper gives details of the many albeit minor differences(68). The authors of this article used the final version held on the publication system (what might be called the ‘version of record’) and compared it with the author’s original MS as accepted but before any copy-editing or proof correction. It was shown that most amendments that occurred as a result of the publication process affected the accuracy of references. Without such attention to detail, the ability to link out to the original source of the reference would be substantially impaired.
由于论文可能有许多版本，版本控制就存在问题。许多期刊允许作者在出版后，张贴被采纳的论文，其中很可能不包括出版社编辑的修正，或作者校订的更动。最近有一篇论文探讨这些微小的差异（注68），文章作者以出版系统的最后定稿（可称为“记录版本”），和作者最初提交、未经编辑或校订的原稿比较，显示出版过程中形成的大部分修改，会影响参考文献的准确性。不注意细节，要连结至参考文献的原始素材，其可能性就会大大受损。

注68: Wates, Edward & Campbell, Robert, 'Author's version vs publisher's version: an analysis of the copy-editing function’ = [作者版本与出版社版本：编辑功能的分析], in: Learned Publishing, 20 (2007), 121-129.


Clearly publishers need to work with research funders and those running IRs and SRs to establish international standards with appropriate metadata indicating whether the author has archived a ‘working paper’ or the final published version. With the former a link should be provided to the publisher’s site for the final version, ‘the minutes of science’.
显然，出版社需要与研究资助者及机构与学科典藏库的运作者合作，以适当的元数据建立国际标准，指明作者存档的是“工作论文”还是最终出版稿。前者应连结至出版社网站的定稿，即“科学备忘录”。


Conclusions•••••••••••••
结论

The journal publishing system is a huge global enterprise handling more articles every year in line with the growth in research funding.
期刊出版系统是全球性的巨大行业，伴随着研究资助的成长，每年正处理越来越多的论文。

The system is robust and operates at high standards delivering wider access at lower unit cost as a result of huge investment in technology and new pricing models.
通过对技术的巨大投资，以及新的订价模式，这个系统健全且高标准运行，以较低的单价提供更广范围的获取。

‘Author pays’ Open Access is one pricing model and should be included as a viable part of the system as funders accept the charges required to sustain high standards.
“作者付费”的开放获取是一种订价模式，只要资助者认可收费是维持高标准的一部分，就应纳入该系统之内。

The green road to Open Access (self-archiving) could undermine the system and endanger the ‘minutes of science’ unless funders accept an embargo on self-archiving to maintain economic viability and work with publishers to establish international standards for archiving.
开放获取的玉律（自存档）可能侵蚀此系统，危害“科学备忘录”，除非资助者接受自存档的禁锢期以维持出版社的经济生存，并与出版社共同建立存档的国际标准。

p. 93-96
Open Access: Opportunities and challenges. A handbook [开放获取 : 机会及挑战] / European Commission, German Commission for UNESCO. -- Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008. -- 144 p., 14.8 x 21.0 cm. -- ISBN 978-92-79-06665-8. -- EUR 23459, http://tinyurl.com/3q8wo5